If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Canon 50mm f/1.4 vs 50mm f/1.8
The difference between these lenses in price is large, but aside from
that extra bit of speed, what else is there? How much of a difference is that? I'm a relative beginner, and I'm looking for a very fast and affordable lens to use for available light indoor situations, sometimes with motion. Until I can afford the 70-200mm f/2.8L, I need *something* that will have more speed than the kit lens so I'm not completely locked out in low-light situations. Dave |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
David Geesaman wrote:
The difference between these lenses in price is large, but aside from that extra bit of speed, what else is there? How much of a difference is that? 1.4 vs. 1.8 is two-thirds of a stop. The 1.4 may be a better quality lens than the 1.8, but the 1.8, in all probability, will be better than anything you've used before anyway. I'm a relative beginner, and I'm looking for a very fast and affordable lens to use for available light indoor situations, sometimes with motion. I'd say go with the 1.8. It'll be much cheaper. At some point you may feel that you need what the 1.4 has to offer, but if so, that will come at the point when you're not a relative beginner any more. There is no sense in spending the money for the 1.4 unless you really know you need it. -- Jeremy | |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"David Geesaman" wrote in message ... The difference between these lenses in price is large, but aside from that extra bit of speed, what else is there? How much of a difference is that? I'm a relative beginner, and I'm looking for a very fast and affordable lens to use for available light indoor situations, sometimes with motion. Until I can afford the 70-200mm f/2.8L, I need *something* that will have more speed than the kit lens so I'm not completely locked out in low-light situations. Dave I have the 50mm f1.4 - it is a cheap lens @ $310. Why did I get this over the f1.8? - USM - Build - this lens has some weight to it - Has much better bokeh : this is critical for a fast lens IMO - Has better coatings to correct undesirables - f1.4 DOES make a difference. When in Av, going from f1.8 to f1.4 increaes the shutter speed by close to 2x. Even if it means, you will go from 1/30s to 1/50s, this is enough to be the difference between blur and sharp. Unless you are on a very tight budget, I would say go the f1.4. BTW I have the 70-200mm f2.8LIS and the colors/contrast of the 50mm are very close. This is one of canon's sharpest lenses, and you will see it used for many camera body tests - after all it was good enough to put on the 1Ds MkII on dpreview.com. Thanks Musty. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Jeremy Nixon wrote:
David Geesaman wrote: The difference between these lenses in price is large, but aside from that extra bit of speed, what else is there? How much of a difference is that? 1.4 vs. 1.8 is two-thirds of a stop. The 1.4 may be a better quality lens than the 1.8, but the 1.8, in all probability, will be better than anything you've used before anyway. I'm a relative beginner, and I'm looking for a very fast and affordable lens to use for available light indoor situations, sometimes with motion. I'd say go with the 1.8. It'll be much cheaper. At some point you may feel that you need what the 1.4 has to offer, but if so, that will come at the point when you're not a relative beginner any more. There is no sense in spending the money for the 1.4 unless you really know you need it. Thanks for the input. I think I'll get the $75 version, since I'll also be using it in very dusty conditions and I may ruin it. At the least, I could sell it on eBay/etc for $50 and upgrade. Dave |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
David Geesaman writes:
The difference between these lenses in price is large, but aside from that extra bit of speed, what else is there? How much of a difference is that? I'm a relative beginner, and I'm looking for a very fast and affordable lens to use for available light indoor situations, sometimes with motion. Then you want the f/1.8. For the money, you won't find a sharper or faster lens, that's for damned sure. The f/1.4 really just buys you more light and a much cooler looking lens. There might be some sharpness to be had there as well, but if affordable is part of your equation, the f/1.8 is damned hard to beat for bang for the buck. Though I'm sure there will be f/1.4 owners out there justifying their purchases on this thread. :-) Best Regards, -- Todd H. http://www.toddh.net/ |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Todd H." wrote in message ... David Geesaman writes: Though I'm sure there will be f/1.4 owners out there justifying their purchases on this thread. :-) Yes, its cooler looking!!! ;-) I will actually admit that I _prefer_ not to buy "funny" looking lenses. For some bizarre reason, the feel(eg weight), style and ergonomics of a lens are very important to me (obviously lower priority than imgae quality) - but it does affect my decisions. My other reasons relating to image quality are stated in my original response. Misty. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Musty" wrote in message ... "Todd H." wrote in message ... David Geesaman writes: Though I'm sure there will be f/1.4 owners out there justifying their purchases on this thread. :-) Yes, its cooler looking!!! ;-) I will actually admit that I _prefer_ not to buy "funny" looking lenses. For some bizarre reason, the feel(eg weight), style and ergonomics of a lens are very important to me (obviously lower priority than imgae quality) - but it does affect my decisions. My other reasons relating to image quality are stated in my original response. Misty. I meant Musty (hehe) - and no, thats not my "feminine side" coming out. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Some how Play "Musty" for me just doesn't ring quite the same - LOL
"Musty" wrote in message ... "Musty" wrote in message ... "Todd H." wrote in message ... David Geesaman writes: Though I'm sure there will be f/1.4 owners out there justifying their purchases on this thread. :-) Yes, its cooler looking!!! ;-) I will actually admit that I _prefer_ not to buy "funny" looking lenses. For some bizarre reason, the feel(eg weight), style and ergonomics of a lens are very important to me (obviously lower priority than imgae quality) - but it does affect my decisions. My other reasons relating to image quality are stated in my original response. Misty. I meant Musty (hehe) - and no, thats not my "feminine side" coming out. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Musty wrote:
"Todd H." wrote in message ... David Geesaman writes: Though I'm sure there will be f/1.4 owners out there justifying their purchases on this thread. :-) Yes, its cooler looking!!! ;-) I will actually admit that I _prefer_ not to buy "funny" looking lenses. For some bizarre reason, the feel(eg weight), style and ergonomics of a lens are very important to me (obviously lower priority than imgae quality) - but it does affect my decisions. My other reasons relating to image quality are stated in my original response. My therapist wants to talk to your therapist. -- Frank ess "sometimes a lens is just a cigar". —Sigmund Daguerre |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
nikon 55mm f/1.2 over various 50mm f/1.4 | Bruce Murphy | 35mm Photo Equipment | 3 | November 29th 04 06:36 PM |
Problems with Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 Lens | Dave | Digital Photography | 10 | July 13th 04 01:04 PM |
Problems with Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 Lens | Paul Friday | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | July 12th 04 10:09 PM |
Trade Canon AE-1 with 50mm f/1.8 lens for Bogen/Manfrotto ballhead w/QR plate | Minolta shooter (Colyn) | General Equipment For Sale | 0 | April 23rd 04 09:19 PM |
FA: Nikon FE2 (black), with Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 | Angelo P. | 35mm Equipment for Sale | 0 | January 1st 04 03:28 AM |